Post by twik on Oct 3, 2011 11:15:17 GMT -4

Yeah, there's a reason courts don't just say, "Oh, you say you were framed? Oh, well, go on home, then."

I was not even coming close to implying that one should be considered not guilty because they say they are framed. Don't twist my words.

I am just saying that the JFK assassination is far from a case closed proposition.

I think it's about as closed as it can be.

One telling factor against a conspiracy is that the "evidence" for it is all over the map. If you say that you believe that Hunt's "confession" was real evidence, then you must commit yourself to saying that THAT is what the conspiracy was. You must then discount any other people claiming, "No, Hunt had nothing to do with it, it was these other people who did it!" Both cannot logically be true, and if one set of evidence is false, then it does not mean that the other set is true. Both may be equally false.

The Onion once did a rather amusing report that it had been determined that every single person in Dealey Plaza had been shooting at JFK. Which, if you believe all the conspiracy theories at once, must have been pretty close to accurate.

A whole lot of bad evidence does not equal any amount of good evidence.

Personally, if I were to set up an assassination and needed a surreptitious second shooter, I'd make darn sure they were firing from the same direction as the first shooter. (Actually, I'd make sure I had a first shooter who could do the job, but perhaps I'm just better at this conspiracy stuff than "the powers that be".)

Post by gillianren on Oct 3, 2011 13:45:39 GMT -4

And, as in Apollo, you have to figure out how many people would have to go along with the whole thing, and that's always been a deal-breaker for me with conspiracies. Humans talk. It's what they do. Yes, you get false confessions with JFK, but they're always contradicted by the evidence. It's all part of the same conspiracist thinking so far as I am concerned, which is that a vague sense of unease about something is in and of itself evidence. It isn't and never will be, no matter whether the event in question is Apollo, JFK, 9/11, or even just whether your kid sister read your diary.

Gillian

"This seems like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed."

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain

Post by twik on Oct 3, 2011 14:19:06 GMT -4

(Actually, I'd make sure I had a first shooter who could do the job, but perhaps I'm just better at this conspiracy stuff than "the powers that be".)

Right. The conspiracy theorists always point out what a remarkable feat of marksmanship Oswald was alleged to have accomplished.

Well, no. A remarkable feat of marksmanship would be to hit the target on the first shot.

Well, I would give him credit for being perfectly adequate. But if I never wanted my conspiracy to be detected, I would keep it as simple as possible, and that involves only having one person doing the shooting for me. If I thought I needed two, but wanted to make it look like one, it would be rather unwise to place the second shooter at a completely different angle than the first. What if the "second shooter" had missed as well, and hit the car? Nice clear entry and exit hole? Maybe not even an exit hole if it richocheted inside the car? Pretty darn big giveaway.

If the second shooter was guaranteed not to miss, I'd have put him up in the TSBD instead.

Post by echnaton on Oct 3, 2011 15:14:24 GMT -4

While a head shot would seem to be a good idea in an assassination, unless Oswald provided a detailed confession during the short time he lived after JFK was shot, it is not certain he was taking a head shot. Perhaps it was just a high shot that was actually aimed at the upper back. The point being that any attribution of any particular shot as "magical," must rely on an unproven assumptions about what was in Oswald's mind at the time.

Post by grmcdorman on Oct 3, 2011 15:20:09 GMT -4

Not to mention that it is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

I mean, if he had hit JFK on the first shot instead of the third, that still wouldn't make it impossible. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible, and certainly not proof of a Grand Conspiracy (or of anything but a lucky shot).